BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.57 of 2016.                                                                           

                                                         Date of Institution         :   15.2.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :   09.08.2017

Balvir Singh son of Shri Sher Singh, resident of village Chak Bhawra, P.O. Chak Sotrian, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Fazilka (Punjab).

                      ….Complainant.                     

                    Versus.

1. Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd., through its authorized signatory, opposite police chowki, (Traffic) NH-10, Hisar Road, Sirsa.

2. Kamal Singla, Sales Manager of Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd., NH-10, Hisar Road, Sirsa.

3. Cheverolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized signatory Block-B, Chanderpura Industrial Estate Halol, District Panchmahal (Gujrat). 

                                                                                 ..…Opposite Parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        Sh. Raghbir Singh………………………..President.

                   Smt. Rajni Goyat……………………Member.

                 Sh. Mohinder Paul Rathee………….Member.              

Present:       Sh. Virender Kamboj,  Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. B.S. Vinayak, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

Sh. D.L.Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

Sh. B.L. Narula, Advocate for opposite party No.3.

ORDER

                   In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant having desire to purchase a car of Chevrolet company approached to op no.1 and put forth his intention/ willing to purchase the Beat car worth Rs.5,35,000/- upon which the representative as well as dealing hand/ authorized person of op no.1 asked the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- in lieu of booking and total price of the car was stated as Rs.5,35,000/-. The complainant acceded to the request of the ops and agreed to purchase new car on loan. The ops no.1 & 2 assured him that they would get the car financed after paying the down payment of Rs.1,89,000/- and completing other documentary formalities. As per the assurance of the ops on 9.12.2014 the complainant got transferred an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- in the account of op no.1 and also completed all the required formalities as per their instructions. But after one month op no.1 refused to deliver the car to the complainant by saying that finance facility is given only to the residents of Haryana. The complainant made complaints in this regard to the ops but not only the ops did not bother about the same but also have not returned the money to the complainant till date despite of repeated requests. In this way the ops are guilty of unfair and maltrade practice and due to act and conduct of the ops, the complainant has undergone much mental tension, harassment and humiliation as the complainant has to take about 100 rounds to the agency of the op inspite of depositing the huge amount of Rs.1,89,000/- in advance. The complainant also got served legal notice to the ops on 31.3.2015 and 1.4.2015 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; estoppal and that complainant has not only concealed the true and material facts from this Forum but has twisted the same also. Hence, the complainant being dishonest in the litigation is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum. On merits, it is submitted that as a matter of fact one Surender Kumar son of Sh. Milkh Raj, resident of village Mangala, Tehsil and District Sirsa approached the answering op as he desired to purchase a new beat car on finance which was amounting to Rs.5,35,000/- and it was told by the answering op to him that an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- will have to be deposited by him in cash and remaining amount will be paid through sanctioning of car loan. Thereafter, said Surender Kumar again visited the premises of the answering op and paid an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- to the answering op to purchase the said Beat car in his name and remaining amount was paid through finance company and as such the bills of the said car were issued in the name of Surinder Kumar and delivery of the car in question was given to him vide Gate pass No.869 dated 9.12.2014. The down payment of Rs.1,89,000/- was paid to the answering op by Surender Kumar through bank account of the complainant Balvir Singh as they both are close relative and invoice and other documents were issued in the name of Surender Kumar. At the time of purchasing the said car, the complainant was present at the spot and gate pass was got signed by the complainant for proving his presence at the spot as the amount was transferred to the answering op through the bank account of the complainant only on the asking of Surender Kumar. However, the payment was made by said Surender Kumar and bills were issued in the name of Surender Kuamr and car loan was sanctioned in his name and the balance amount was also received by the answering op from the loan account of said Surender Kumar, so the complainant is not the consumer of the answering op. Moreover, the complainant has wrongly impleaded the op no.2 as party by alleging that ops No.1 & 2 assured the complainant to get the loan sanctioned, whereas the op no.2 was not present at the time of purchasing the said car because the op no.2 joined as Sales Manager in Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 17.12.2014, hence question of any assurance to the complainant by the op no.2 on 9.12.2014 does not arise at all. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.

3.                OP no.2 in its separate written statement has averred that answering op has joined the company on 17.12.2014, so question of his presence prior to it or on 9.12.2014 in the premises of agency does not arise at all. Hence, all the allegations regarding obligation, assurance by the answering op to the complainant are totally false and frivolous.

4.                OP no.3 in its separate written statement has averred that present complaint deserves to be dismissed qua op no.3 as throughout the complaint no allegation/ deficiency in service has been leveled qua op no.3. All other contents of the complaint are also specifically denied.

5.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.PW1/.B, affidavit of Ajay Singh son of Shri Kashmir Lal, resident of village Maujdin, Tehsil and District Sirsa Ex.PW2/A. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of vehicle delivery gate pass Ex.R2, copy of retail invoice Ex.R3, copy of appointment letter for the post of Sales Head Ex.R4, affidavit Ex.R1/A, affidavit Ex.RW3/A.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through pleadings of the parties and material placed on case file, we are of the considered opinion that this complaint cannot be decided in a summary manner because it involves complicated and complex questions of facts and law which require elaborate evidence. The complainant has alleged that on 9.12.2014 he transferred an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- in the account of op no.1 and also completed all the required formalities as per instructions of the ops for purchasing the car in question but op no.1 refused to deliver the car to him on the ground that finance facility is given only to the residents of Haryana. It is further the case of the complainant that ops have also not returned the above said amount of Rs.1,89,000/- to him. On the other hand, op no.1 has specifically averred that one Surender Kumar son of Sh. Milkh Raj, resident of village Mangala, Tehsil and District Sirsa approached the answering op and he desired to purchase a new beat car on finance which was amounting to Rs.5,35,000/- and it was told by the answering op to him that an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- will have to be deposited by him in cash and remaining amount will be paid through finance. Thereafter, said Surender Kumar again visited the premises of the op No.1 and paid an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- and remaining amount was paid through finance company and as such the bills of the said car were issued in the name of Surinder Kumar and delivery of the car in question was given to him vide Gate pass No.869 dated 9.12.2014. The down payment of Rs.1,89,000/- was paid to op No.1 by Surender Kumar through bank account of the complainant Balvir Singh as they both are close relative and invoice and other documents were issued in the name of Surender Kumar. At the time of purchasing the said car, the complainant was present at the spot and gate pass was signed by the complainant as the amount was transferred to the answering op through the bank account of the complainant only on the asking of Surender Kumar. However, the payment was made by said Surender Kumar and bills were issued in the name of Surender Kuamr and car loan was sanctioned in his name and the balance amount was also received by the answering op from the loan account of said Surender Kumar.

8.                In view of the above said pleadings of the parties, some intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case. They are whether Balvir Singh complainant has any relation or acquaintance with said Surender Singh, whether actually Surender Singh wanted to purchase beat car from the ops and for that he paid an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- to the ops through the bank account of the complainant, whether the plea of the op no.1 in this regard is true or concocted?  It is also to be proved through detailed evidence that whether complainant was present at the time of delivery of the car in question to Surnder Singh, reasons as to why Balvir Singh signed the invoice issued in the name of Surender Singh as customer and vehicle delivery gate pass? To answer these intricate and complicated questions of facts, elaborate and voluminous evidence is required and the matter cannot be decided summarily. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the case law titled as Uco Bank Vs. Sh. S.D. Wadhwa, 2013 (4) CLT (NC).   

9.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered view that present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as elaborate and detailed evidence is required in this case which is not possible before this Forum. As such the present complaint is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate Court/ authority, if he so desires. The complainant may seek exemption of time spent before this Forum in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC page 583. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated: 09.08.2017.                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                      Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                Member             Member